NewsWrap
for the week ending May 29, 2004
(As broadcast on This Way Out program #844, distributed 5-31-04)
[Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Fenceberry, Rex
Wockner, and Greg Gordon]
Anchored this week by Dean Elzinga and Cindy Friedman
Australia's Coalition Government this week introduced legislation to
explicitly deny legal recognition to marriages and adoptions by gay and lesbian
couples -- but also to allow federal death benefits to be assigned to same-gender
partners. Prime Minister John Howard said, "[T]he definition of a marriage is
something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the
nation. [It should] not over time be subject to redefinition or change by the
courts. It is something that ought to be expressed through the elected
representatives of the country." Both Howard and Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock
also expressed particular concern that Australian gays and lesbians would go to
other countries to marry and adopt, and they want to ensure those
international actions will not be recognized in Australia. In fact, one gay male couple
has already begun legal proceedings for recognition of their Canadian marriage.
A few members of Howard's own Liberal Party vigorously protested the proposed
marriage restriction, warning that its appearance of anti-gay malice might
lose the party as many as three seats in the Parliament in upcoming elections.
Some specifically noted the apparent copying of U.S. President George W. Bush.
But the Prime Minister is confident that the large majority of Coalition
Members of Parliament support the move.
The Opposition Australian Labor Party confirmed previous indications that
it will not try to block the marriage ban. ALP spokesperson Nicola Roxon said,
"We are not going to get hot under the collar about a piece of legislation
which is just confirming the existing law." But there is some division on the
issue among Labor MPs, many of whom support creating civil unions for
same-gender couples.
The smaller Australian Democratic Party demanded a Senate inquiry "to
properly investigate" the Government's proposals. Openly gay ADP spokesperson Brian
Greig said, "The human rights of gay and lesbian people and their children
must not be used as a cynical election wedge."
The few federal Greens are expected to oppose the marriage ban. Before the
Government made its move, Green MP Michael Organ this week introduced a private
member's bill to end discrimination based on sexual orientation in a number
of Australian laws, including those regarding marriage, adoptions, and benefits.
The Government's move to broaden the pension rules is a marked turnaround,
as the Coalition has repeatedly blocked similar proposals over the last 8
years. As veteran gay activist Rodney Croome put it, that history "suggests that
[the] current superannuation reform proposal is about sweetening a legislative
agenda which is otherwise bitterly sour with prejudice." The pension reform
bill would expand eligibility both for receiving death benefits and for
waiving inheritance taxes, and gay and lesbian survivors would not have to prove
their financial dependence on deceased partners. But Howard emphasized that the
bill "will not specifically recognize same-sex relationships". Assistant
Treasurer Helen Coonan pointed out that the benefits would be equally accessible
to cohabiting siblings with shared finances or to live-in care-givers of
disabled or elderly people.
Same-gender marriages have come under the gun in France as well. This week
the banns of marriage were officially posted for gay couple Jean-Luc
Charpentier and Stephane Chapin at the city hall in Begles. That town's Mayor Noel
Mamére -- who's also a Green MP -- had previously and very publicly vowed to
marry the men on June 5th. Although France has for several years offered gays
and lesbians the option of legal registered partnerships known as PACS -- Pacts
of Civil Solidarity -- those are not entirely equivalent to marriage, and the
planned marriage will be a first for France. The state prosecutor Bertrand de
Loze responded to the banns with a fax to Mamére asserting that, "as a
functionary of the civil state, you are forbidden to celebrate the marriage which
has been announced. ... It is important that as a person in whom public
authority is vested you abstain from any initiative that will lead to a breach of the
law." The prosecutor also issued a formal statement that the marriage itself
will be declared null and void. But neither the couple nor Mamére are
deterred -- they had expected all along that the marriage would become a test case in
the European courts. Meanwhile, their plans have made marriage equality a
significant debate in national election campaigns, one that's dividing liberal
opinion. Now the mayor of Marseille has also announced he'll marry a gay
couple on June 19th, and a few other mayors may follow suit.
A year has passed since Belgium opened legal marriage to gay and lesbian
couples, following the Netherlands to become the second nation in the world to
do so. Over the 12 months, 300 same-gender couples have married. That's 1.2%
of all marriages recorded in the period. Four-fifths of the gay and lesbian
marriages were in the Flanders region, more than ten times as many there as in
the Brussels area.
This week Brussels held its 9th annual Gay Pride parade with the motto
"Freedom, equality and diversity". An estimated 15,000 people turned out to
celebrate. Among their political concerns are the still-unequal parental rights of
gays and lesbians.
The U.S. state of Massachusetts began legally marrying gay and lesbian
couples last week, but a struggle continues over those couples who come from other
states. At the behest of Republican Governor Mitt Romney, Democratic
Attorney-General Thomas Reilly ordered clerks throughout the state to stop issuing
licenses to out-of-state same-gender couples. This action is based on a 1913
so-called "reverse evasion" statute that prevents Massachusetts from marrying
non-resident couples whose marriages would not be recognized in their home
states. Four Massachusetts cities had been vocal about their decisions to license
non-resident gays and lesbians, on the grounds that they had always licensed
non-resident heterosexual couples. In the wake of Reilly's order and the
administration's review of the licenses they had issued, all four of those cities
-- Somerville, Springfield, Provincetown, and Worcester -- have now backed
down. At least one or two of them may take legal action towards resuming
licensing non-residents. But two other cities -- Attleboro and Fall River -- had more
quietly decided to license gay and lesbian couples from the 11 states that do
not have laws that explicitly deny legal recognition to same-gender marriages
performed outside their borders. An earlier statement by the
Attorney-General himself had supported their understanding that this was within the bounds of
the 1913 Massachusetts law, and they're seeking further clarification from
him. The Governor prefers to interpret it based on the notion that since no
other state marries same-gender couples, no non-resident gays and lesbians should
be licensed. The administration is collecting for review the license
applications those two towns have issued to non-resident same-gender couples.
But at least the Norfolk County District Attorney, William Keating, has
announced he won't prosecute clerks for violations of that law, since he believes
it was effectively nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck
down bans on interracial marriages. There's plenty of room for legal debate, and
there's reason to expect a lawsuit in the near future by gay and lesbian
couples from other states who want to marry in Massachusetts.
In April, Romney had written to the governors and attorneys-general of the 49
other U.S. states asking if they would recognize Massachusetts marriages of
gay and lesbian couples. Attorneys-general by and large did not believe it was
appropriate for them to respond with legal opinions requested by another
state's governor. But at least South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds did respond,
with a letter saying emphatically, "South Dakota law does NOT allow same-sex
marriages."
Arizona is one of the majority of states which does explicitly deny legal
recognition to same-gender marriages. This week Arizona's Supreme Court
declined to take up a case that challenged that law as unconstitutionally
discriminatory. The dismissal let stand an Arizona Court of Appeals ruling that upheld
the 1996 law. The appellate court had found that gays and lesbians have no
fundamental right to marriage, and that procreation and child-rearing concerns
gave the state a rational basis for denying it to them.
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration last week recommended that gay men
should be barred from making anonymous sperm donations. The FDA specified men
known to have had sex with another man within the previous 5 years. That's
despite a requirement that all tissue donors -- including sperm donors -- must be
tested for infections for a number of sexually transmitted diseases including
HIV, as well as two types of hepatitis. What the FDA issued is apparently
"guidance" rather than a regulation with the force of law. But the move was
strongly protested by activists who believe it represents stereotyping rather than
science. However it's handled, it will not have an impact on privately
arranged sperm donations.
Last week, Republican Governor John Rowland signed a bill to make
Connecticut the 8th U.S. state to include transgenders in its hate crimes law. That
law will now allow increased sentencing for those convicted criminals who
selected victims based on their "actual or perceived gender identity".
And finally... gay and lesbian marriage opponent U.S. President George W.
Bush had another minor accident this week, this time getting some scrapes as
he fell off a bicycle. His spokesperson Trent Duffy attributed the problem to
loose topsoil from recent rains. But Duffy, not content to leave it at that,
added, "You know the President. He likes to go all out. Suffice it to say he
wasn't whistling show tunes."